Semantics
UC https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/266392d00a109c37# UC wrote post.25: On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila wrote: > Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all > the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I > have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can be > shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with > respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the > holocaust. I will now make the following statements. No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive. This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a matter of semantics. baboon issue On Jul 12, 8:02 pm, Attila wrote: > UC wrote: > > On Jul 11, 5:57 am, Attila wrote: > >> Ok, so here's the deal. UC claims that humans are not apes inspite of all > >> the evidence that humans are great apes in the objective sense and, as I > >> have shown great apes can be shortened to apes just a Great Britain can > >> be shortened to Britain. This becomes important to Nando aka Syamsu with > >> respect to rejecting subjectivity being tied up with lying about the > >> holocaust. I will now make the following statements. > > > No, I said that the terms 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive. > > This means that you CANNOT assert that 'humans are apes' because it's > > a logical contradiction, in exactly the same way that you cannot say > > that 'my wife is a bachelor'. It is not a matter of 'evidence' but a > > matter of semantics. > > Is your problem with ape alone or ape in any company at all as in great ape. > The latter phrase seems to be coomonly used no how much you fuss about it. > Second question: do you have a problem with the grouping of humans, chimps, > gorillas and orangutans into a family in the evolutionary biological sense? > Is it term "great ape" that causes you grief or is it the CONCEPT of humans, > chimps, gorillas and orangutans sharing a common ancestor? > Finally, your saying something doesn't make it so. The fact that YOU say > 'ape' and 'human' are mutually exclusive is not probative in the least and > of no particular interest to anyone except perhaps your friends and family. UC is saying the following: 1) When a baboon with floppy ears and a fruitcake look on his face lies besides you in hospital, the doctor designates with the terms ape blood and human blood a concept that your life will depend on. 2) Ape, monkey, simian, baboon can all be used interchangeably in the *vernacular* sense. The alleged common ancestor between man and ape is an exercise in semantic smoke and mirrors: it was a monkey or flea scratching baboon or if it makes you feel more intellectually sophisticated then you may call it a primate. As long as you understand that this replaces one vernacular for another as John Wilkins explained. See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Common_Ancestor and http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_isn't_defined Category:Common ancestor Category:Semantics